• calamari13
In summary, the speaker is conducting a particle counting experiment and is trying to show that the increase in counts is undetectable with their current level of statistics. They have a question about the errors in the increase of counts and whether the observed increase is statistically insignificant. They provide data on the number of particles counted and the corresponding errors, and ask if this is enough evidence to support their argument or if they need additional support.

calamari13

Hi guys,

I have a very easy question to ask - been bugging me for a while but I keep
So I am doing a particle counting experiment at the moment and changing the
conditions slightly each time to see if there is an increase in the number of counts
(there should be, I'm trying to show that with the level of statistics I have it is
undetectable though). My question is an extremely simple one about errors in the
increase of counts.
Say I count 232 particles (giving me an error of approx. 15) and then alter the conditions
and count 246 particles (giving me an error of approx. 16). Then the percentage increase
in counts is (6.03 ± 9.72)% (adding the errors in quadrature). My question is, is this enough
to say that the increase in counts is statistically insignificant? Or do I need some other sort of argument?

Cheers,
Max

You'd have to precisely define statistically insignificant.

What are the most common types of errors in scientific experiments?

The most common types of errors in scientific experiments are systematic errors, random errors, and human errors. Systematic errors occur due to flaws in the experimental design or equipment, while random errors are caused by chance and cannot be eliminated completely. Human errors are mistakes made by researchers during data collection or analysis.

How do scientists account for errors in their experiments?

Scientists account for errors in their experiments by conducting multiple trials and taking the average of the results. They also use statistical analysis to identify and quantify errors in their data. Additionally, scientists may use control groups and double-blind studies to minimize potential sources of error.

Can errors in scientific experiments be completely eliminated?

No, errors in scientific experiments cannot be completely eliminated. However, scientists use various methods to minimize errors and increase the accuracy and reliability of their results. It is important for scientists to acknowledge and report any potential sources of error in their research.

How do scientists distinguish between systematic and random errors?

Scientists distinguish between systematic and random errors by analyzing the consistency and pattern of the errors. Systematic errors will consistently affect the results in a particular direction, while random errors will vary in magnitude and direction. Additionally, systematic errors can often be identified and corrected, while random errors cannot.

What are the consequences of errors in scientific experiments?

The consequences of errors in scientific experiments can vary depending on the severity and type of error. Minor errors may have little impact on the overall results, while major errors can lead to inaccurate or unreliable data. In some cases, errors can even result in misleading conclusions and harm the credibility of the research.